alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 9/15/16 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2016 ND 182

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Danny Birchfield, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20140109

Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce B. Haskell, Judge.  Disposition upon remand from the United States Supreme Court.

REMANDED.

Per Curiam.

Morton County State’s Attorney’s Office, 210 2nd Avenue Northwest, Mandan, N.D. 58554, for plaintiff and appellee.

Danny L. Herbel, 3333 East Broadway Avenue, Suite 1205, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for defendant and appellant.

Attorney General’s Office, 600 East Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, N.D. 58505, for amicus curiae North Dakota Attorney General.

State v. Birchfield

No. 20140109

Per Curiam.

[¶1]After being arrested for driving under the influence, Danny Birchfield refused to consent to a warrantless chemical blood test and was charged with refusal to submit to a chemical test in violation of N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01.  He moved to dismiss the criminal charge, contending N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01, which criminalizes the refusal to submit to a chemical test, is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and N.D. Const. art. I, § 8.  The district court concluded Birchfield’s rights under those provisions were not violated by the criminal charge for refusing to consent to a chemical test. Birchfield conditionally pled guilty under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2), reserving his right to appeal the court’s order denying his motion to dismiss.

[¶2]In State v. Birchfield, 2015 ND 6, ¶¶ 1, 19, 858 N.W.2d 302, we held the statute criminalizing Birchfield’s refusal to submit to a chemical test did not violate his right to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, or N.D. Const. art. I, § 18.  The United States Supreme Court granted Birchfield’s petition for writ of certiorari.

[¶3]In Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S.Ct. 2160, 2184-85 (2016), the United States Supreme Court held the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving, but absent another exception to the warrant requirement, does not permit warrantless blood tests incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving.  The United States Supreme Court concluded that in Birchfield’s prosecution for refusing a warrantless blood test incident to his arrest, the refused blood test was not justified as a search incident to his arrest and reversed his conviction because he was threatened with an unlawful search.  Id. at 2186.  The Court remanded to this Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion.  Id.

[¶4]We vacate our opinion affirming Birchfield’s conviction for refusal to submit to a chemical blood test to the extent it is inconsistent with Birchfield v. North Dakota.  We remand to the district court with directions to allow Birchfield to withdraw his guilty plea and to dismiss with prejudice the charge of refusal to submit to a chemical test.

[¶5]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. RP06-540-000] 

Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened in this proceeding commencing at 10 a.m. (EST) on Thursday, April 19, 2007 at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, for the purpose of exploring the possible settlement of the above-referenced docket. 

Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214). 

For additional information, please contact Arnold Meltz (202-502-8649). 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7-7314 Filed 4-17-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
No. 49361.

#### Protest 74228-K of Advance Solvents & Chemical Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

The only question at issue appeared to be whether notice of intent to export the drums had been filed. It was fully established that the drums had been previously exported *from*the United States and at the time of exportation notice of intent had been filed for each of the drums. The collector was therefore directed to reliquidate the entry and make refund of duties taken on the 12 drums.
**AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

JUDGMENT IN CIVIL CASE 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 

Petitioner,

vs. Civil Action 2:11-CV-112

Judge Marbley

Magistrate Judge King

GREIF BROTHERS, INC.,

Respondent.

[] Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been

tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

[] Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have

been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

[X] Decision by Court. This action was decided by the Court without a trial or hearing.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED That pursuant to the

September 6, 2011 Order, this action is hereby DISMISSED,

due to lack of cause from the parties why the case should

remain pending.

Date: September 6, 2011 James Bonini, Clerk

 s/Betty L. Clark 

 Betty L. Clark/Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:11-cv-00112-ALM-NMK Doc #: 17 Filed: 09/06/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
#### Rogers Imports Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6393.

Entry No. 3813, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, July 14, 1941, etc.

Certified July 16, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., August 21, 1941, etc.

(Decided September 30, 1946)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed'facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Filed by sedaredgar.com - Exploration Drilling International Inc. - Exhibit 10.79






LOAN AGREEMENT

between

EDI Exploration Drilling International Holding GmbH

represented by the Managing Director 
Günter Thiemann 
Goethestrasse
59, 45721 Haltern am See

     - in the following referred to as
lender -

and

EDI Exploration Drilling International GmbH, 
represented by
the Managing Director 
Christian Runge 
Goethestrasse 59, 46721 Haltern am
See

- in the following referred to as borrower -

§ 1 Granting of loan

	 	1. 	The lender grants the borrower a loan
      in the amount of 
	 	  	Euro 	63,950.16 
	 	  	(in words: sixty-three thousand nine
      hundred and fifty Euro) 
	 	  	  	  
		2. 	The loan shall be paid out by
      transfer into the borrower’s account at the ********* *********** ***,
      **** **** *** *** **, ******* ****** ** ** **. 


§ 2 Interest, term and repayment of loan

	 	1. 	
      The annual interest payable on the loan shall be 5.0
      %.

	 	2. 	
      The term of the loan shall be 12 months, and ends on
      30/06/2009.

	 	3. 	
      The loan shall be repaid on 30/06/2009 by transfer into
      the lender’s account.



§ 3 Early repayment

The borrower is entitled to repay the loan including
accumulated interest in one lump sum at any time before the end of the term of
the loan. A prepayment penalty shall not be due.

[File name]

1




§ 4 Extraordinary right of cancellation

The lender is entitled to recall the loan effective
immediately, if the borrowers’ financial circumstances deteriorate considerably,
thus putting the claim of repayment at risk.

§ 5 Securities

The borrower irrevocably transfers all of his claims as
managing director or shareholder from any benefits, to which he is entitled,
(salary claims, profit distributions, new shares issued, profit and loss
transfers, liquidation proceeds, etc.) to the lender.

§ 6 Supplementary agreements, amendments, severability,
executed copies

	 	i. 	
      There are no supplementary agreements. Amendments,
      additions as well as deletions, even of individual provisions of this
      agreement must be made in writing in order to be effective.

	 	 	 
	 	ii. 	
      Should individual provisions of this agreement be
      invalid, the remainder of the agreement shall not be affected. In this
      case, the parties to the agreement are required to assume that a
      replacement provision has been agreed to, which fulfils the economic
      purpose of the invalid provision as much as possible.

	 	 	 
	 	iii. 	
      This contract shall be issued in duplicate. The lender
      and the borrower shall each receive a copy signed by both parties to the
      agreement.



Haltern, on 01/07/2008

	[Signature] 	 	[Signature] 
	  	 	  
	EDI Exploration Drilling International Holding GmbH 	 	EDI Exploration Drilling International GmbH
  
	Managing Director, Günter Thiemann 	 	Managing Director, Christian Runge 
	- Lender - 	 	- Borrower - 


[File name]

2
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 215 

Designating December 2005 as ‘‘National Pear Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 27, 2005 

Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and 

Mrs. BOXER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating December 2005 as ‘‘National Pear Month’’. 

Whereas pear trees imported to Oregon, Washington, and 

California by pioneers in the 1800s thrived in the unique 

agricultural conditions found in the Pacific States; 

Whereas the Pacific States are internationally renowned for 

producing varieties of delicious, sweet, and juicy pears; 

Whereas the Pacific States form the only geographic region 

in the United States with the ideal combination of climate and geography needed to produce high-quality, delicious summer and winter pear varieties; 

Whereas the rich pear-growing region stretches from the Central Valley of California, through the Rogue River Valley 

in southern Oregon, and to the banks of the Columbia 

River in Oregon and Washington; 
2 

•SRES 215 IS

Whereas pears are a high-quality source of vitamin C, potassium, and dietary fiber, have no cholesterol, are low in 

calories, and complement an active lifestyle; 

Whereas Oregon, Washington, and California are world-renowned for providing beautiful and delicious pears; 

Whereas the United States does not have an official pear 

month; and 

Whereas designating December 2005 as ‘‘National Pear 

Month’’ would be a suitable recognition of the affection 

the people of the United States hold for pears and the 

healthful benefits of pears: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates December 2005 as ‘‘National 

3 Pear Month’’; and 

4 (2) encourages the people of the United States 

5 to observe the month with appropriate ceremonies, 

6 activities, and consumption. 

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 72 (Monday, April 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 18973]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7168]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-394-000]


Panther Interstate Pipeline Energy, LLC; Notice of Cost and 
Revenue Study

April 10, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 2, 2007, Panther Interstate Pipeline 
Energy, LLC, (Panther Interstate) tendered for filing its cost and 
revenue study in compliance with the Commission order issued on 
December 24, 2003 in this docket. Panther Interstate states that the 
cost and revenue study follows the Commission's regulations at 18 CFR 
154.313 and is based on the twelve months ending December 31, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated 
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or 
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve 
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#96d0d3c4d5d9f8fafff8f3c5e3e6e6f9e4e2d6f0f3e4f5b8f1f9e0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="763033243539181a1f181325030606190402361013041558111900">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Intervention and Protest Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time April 17, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-7168 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JAMES M. DOUGLAS, 

 CRIM. CASE NO. 2:13-CR-0005 

 Petitioner, CIVIL CASE NO. 2:14-CV-2543 

 JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST 

 v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent. 

ORDER 

 On April 1, 2015, the Court granted Petitioner’s request to dismiss without prejudice his 

motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 48.) 

This matter now is before the Court on Petitioner’s Request for Reconsideration and Reopening 

of Case. (ECF Nos. 49, 50.) Petitioner indicates that his attorney filed the motion to dismiss 

without Petitioner’s consent. He maintains that he does not seek the dismissal of this complaint. 

Petitioner clarifies that he does not challenge his judgment of conviction or sentence. He instead 

claims that prison officials at the Butner Prison Facility have unconstitutionally denied him 

medical treatment and seeks appropriate medical care. He asserts that he has exhausted this 

claim. He indicates that he wants to file such a complaint in the sentencing Court in lieu of the 

jurisdiction of his current incarceration. 

 Petitioner’s complaint is not properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, under which 

prisoners claiming “that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the 

United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the 

sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral 

attack” may seek immediate release. Challenges to a federal prison facility’s denial of adequate 

Case: 2:13-cr-00005-MHW Doc #: 24 Filed: 05/06/15 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

medical care, however, may be brought in an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 

U.S. 388 (1979), which provides federal inmates with a cause of action for civil rights 

complaints similar to that under 18 U.S.C. § 1983. See United States v. Gonyea, 2012 WL 

5205874 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 22, 2012)(claims regarding inadequate medical care must be brought 

in an action under Bivens); see also Russell v. Scutt, No. 2:13-cv-10655, 2013 WL 212802, at *2 

(E.D. Mich. March 25, 2013)(citing Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 713 (6th Cir. 2004)(denial 

of medical care claims will not be considered in federal habeas corpus petition); Davis v. Zych, 

No. 2:09-cv-11495, 2009 WL 1212489, at *1-2 (E.D. Mich. May 4, 2009)(claims regarding 

conditions of confinement properly brought in a Bivens civil rights action)(citations omitted). 

 For these reasons, Petitioner’s Request for Reconsideration and Reopening of Case, (ECF 

Nos. 49, 50), is DENIED. Petitioner relief, if any, may not be obtained through § 2255. He may 

pursue an appropriate remedy in the Court having jurisdiction over those claims. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ GREGORY L. FROST 

GREGORY L. FROST 

 United States District Judge 

Case: 2:13-cr-00005-MHW Doc #: 24 Filed: 05/06/15 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 54834.

#### Hercules Products Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 155621-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
(Reap. Dec. 8358)

#### Peter De Vold Oil Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 723962, etc.

(Decided November 24, 1954)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiffs.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

Plaintiffs herein seek a reappraisement as to the proper value for duty purposes of certain steel drums covered by the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part of the decision herein.

The facts upon which determination of the issues must be made are not controverted. The subject merchandise consists of steel drums filled with duty-free cod-liver oil, exported from Iceland during the years 1942 to 1945, inclusive. The issues involved in said appeals for a reappraisement are similar in all material respects to those in *United States*v. *E. R. Squibb & Sons et al.,*42 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 23, C. A. D. 564, wherein it was held that the steel drums were properly dutiable in their condition as imported on the basis of United States value, as defined in section 402 (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1001, par. 1402 (e)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938. The record in said *Squibb*case has been incorporated into the records of the present appeals.

It was agreed by the parties that the value or price, at the time of exportation of the involved steel drums to the United States, at which such or similar drums were freely offered for sale for domestic consumption, packed ready for delivery, in the principal market of the United States to all purchasers, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, was 50 cents per drum during the years 1942 to 1945, inclusive, and that plaintiffs waive and claim no allowance for cost of transportation, insurance, expenses from the place of shipment to the place of delivery, commission, profits, or general expenses.

It was further agreed that on or about the dates of exportation of the steel drums here involved such or similar drums were not freely offered for sale in Iceland either for home consumption or for exportation to the United States.

Upon the uncontroverted facts of record, I conclude, as matter of law, that the proper basis of value for the imported drums in issue is *552United States value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, and that such value was 50 cents each for the drums exported during the years 1942 to 1945, inclusive, less the item of duty.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6261

SYDNEY ALPHONSO WISDOM, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH P. SACCHET, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-2494-AW) Submitted: October 29, 2004 Decided: November 4, 2004 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sydney Alphonso Wisdom, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Sydney Alphonso Wisdom seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wisdom has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Through the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), 

FRA is soliciting concept papers on a variety of research 

topics that will have a direct impact on the safety and efficiency of 

freight and passenger rail operations in the United States. 

Submissions will then undergo evaluation and selection by RD&T.

FRA invites 2024 BAA concept papers on topic organized by FRA’s 

research areas:

• Track

• Rolling Stock

• Train Control

• Human Factors

• Railroad Systems

Issues

For more information about the BAA, including program guidelines, specific research 

topics under consideration, and submission deadlines, visit FRA’s BAA webpage.

FRA’s Office of Research, Development, 

and Technology (RD&T) is dedicated to 

conducting research that improves 

railroad safety, promotes innovation, and 

supports national rail transportation policy. 

These efforts advance U.S. Department of

Transportation strategic goals, FRA’s

mission, and the larger rail industry.

FRA 2024 

BROAD AGENCY 

ANNOUNCEMENT

POINT OF CONTACT INFORMATION

Andrew Duffin, FRA Program Analyst 

Email: FRABAA@dot.gov